Donald Trump, pro-life convert?
Politics Daily tells of Donald Trump’s announcement at CPAC yesterday that he has converted to being pro-life. The article quoted pro-lifers thinking this was “good news, I suppose,” “cautious,” and “intrigued.”
I tweeted, “I would love to believe Donald Trump has converted,” getting back one response, “eye roll.”
Welcoming converts is one area where I believe pro-lifers could do better.
When a pro-lifer such as Dick Durbin or Jesse Jackson converts to pro-abortion, the dark side welcomes them. How much better should pro-lifers respond when a pro-abort sees the light?
I recognize there are charlatans, but that is no reason not to do our best to encourage converts on their path. Instead, some of us are more than skeptics, we’re naysayers.
I recognize there are also those converting for political expediency, but so what? Why not encourage and strengthen them on their decision? And if they vote the way we want them to, is their motivation critical?
I have a good example of what I’m talking about.
I was invited to speak at New Jersey’s Rally for Life in 2009. It was primary season, and both Republican candidates for governor were in the room.
I was immediately approached by supporters of the candidate who had pro-life credentials up the ying yang. They whispered the other candidate was not authentic and had converted merely for votes. They brought out disparaging signs and literature against him. There were even a few boos when he was introduced.
Over the course of the evening I began to feel sorry for the other guy, who was all but shunned, and made it a point to go to his table, introduce myself, and sit down and offer him encouragement for his conversion. He lightened up and was so happy to speak with me, describing how he had changed his view when becoming a father in the 1990s. We chatted for about 10 minutes.
You’ve likely figured out by now that guy was Chris Christie, and we all know what a pro-life stalwart he would show himself to be.
So let’s give The Donald a break. Yes, he could indeed betray us at some point. That happens. But it shouldn’t be because we didn’t welcome him into our club.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
He wants to run for President. I find it a little suspicious that he’s just announced his supposed conversion now….why not 5 years ago?
We did welcome Abby Johnson with open arms, but that’s different. I am a little doubtful about D.T’s conversion.
Great point. I welcome Donald Trump. Glad he is pro-life. Still wouldn’t vote for him ;-)
I’d be curious about his conversion story.
Look at it this way. Even if he were only doing it for political expediencey, we can at least be encouraged that he knows which way the wind is blowing, right?
Even the hardest of hearts can convert. and just like Jill said, if they vote pro-life and introduce pro-life legislation, what difference does it really make what their motivations are? That’s what politics is about, and the fact that more and more politicians even feel like they NEED to claim to be pro-life in order to get any traction in the Republican primary is a VERY GOOD SIGN about the political power that the pro-life lobby is gathering.
Unless we all can claim to be mind-readers, and to know politicians’ true hearts as only God can, then I think we should all give ”The Donald” the benefit of the doubt unless he proves otherwise. Now if I could just get my hands on that awful head of hair of his…
You’re absolutely right Jill. We need to cultivate those who are newbies on the correct side of Life. If we don’t, and they return to the place where they are welcome, the sin upon our heads.
I don’t care who calls himself “pro life”. All I want to know is – is the child in the womb a person?
If we cannot welcome new pro-life converts then we are the biggest hypocrites going. I totally agree this is an area where we do need to improve our own personal attitudes. Mea culpa.
Happy to know he wants to be one of us. My comment to all these multi-millionaires is – show me the money.
Our pregnancy centers need help. Our state and local offices could use some help. The St. Vincent de Paul and other groups that help unwed moms and their babies need the help. Where have these guys been to help us in the day to day nitty gritty work that shows you are really pro-life.
as for Donald, he should BUY an hour of prime TV time and show the nation the horror of abortion.
Then he can talk to me about being ‘pro-life.”
I think he can be pro-life and then, when he is ready to do all the things above. I welcome him wholeheartedly. I agree with others – welcome away – with love and heart and enthusiasm. We hope it’s all authentic – and let’s stay positive.
Hey – how about women’s health clinics based on na-pro technology? It’ll help with natural solutions to women’s fertility and menstruation issues – and they can teach NFP, Chastity, etc… We are waiting for a natural solution instead of man-made hormones – and a way to have dignified women’s health care.
Welcome Donald!
Who knows? Perhaps the Donald would be a terrific force for pro-life. I am not saying I am for or against him at this point, but we should recall that Reagan had to undergo a conversion himself.
What I do like about Trump is his no nonsense approach to dealing with the Chinese. He understands business from an insiders perspective–something which many or most of our politicians do not understand. We need someone who would shake up the status quo. If the next president does not understand the realities of international commerce and does not take strong actions in our best interests it may take us generations to recover. We are already in very serious trouble.
Jill the “conversion” to the Pro-life movement is the height of Machiavellianism. The interest is in gaining support to hold on to a position. For those who are truly Pro-life to be so easily swayed by another politician in a suit singing our song reveals our weakness to truly hold people to their views. If indeed Trump converted then let him fully explain his position and why he was ever “pro-abortion” at all. If he has been persuaded on the merit of our arguments to become truly Pro-life then let him explain why instead of being so quick to embrace what could very easily be just one more poser willing to say what needs to be said in order to get elected.
Love the Chris Christie story!!
I would like to hear what “the Donald” has to say and see any newfound pro-life actions/suggestions on his part. The guy’s obviously no stooge. He’s a money-making machine. He knows how to work the system. I will, however, reserve opinions until a later date.
Yes – it’s good to know what they think, how they changed and what they think now.
Witness Abby Johnson – an incredible conversion – a gift from God. She is truly remarkable – and she is doing a world of good repairing the damage of her former life. A conversion story of monumental proportions. She is genuine, growing and dedicated. It’s like watching a flower grow into the most beautiful flower it’s supposed to be. She is spiritually lifted by leaps and bounds.
Lovely, a gift, and maybe Mr. Trump – while not having her style and her back ground, can be his own beautiful creation. God only knows. If he is willing to talk about the issue, and bring light to it in a direct and powerful way, great.
I have a hard time still believing Abby Johnson! Her conversion sounds too good to be true.
I don’t believe Trump at all. Just doing the politics things to get maybe votes one day.
If he is really telling the truth – it will be a miracle.
I am a cynical (hate being that way, but…) pro life New Yorker
Hi mar,
I just finished reading Abby’s story yesterday!! Please order it and read it. Abby has quite the story to tell!!
I second that – we ordered 100+ copies direct from Ignatius Press – and arranged for the area Pro-Life groups and others to buy them. Terrific book. Explains a lot. And we got it into people’s hands quickly – and now they want to give books to others. A quick read – right from the heart.
She is changing hearts and minds – and adding new insight into many things. May God continue to bless her and keep her safe. She has had quite a journey, and it’s still unfolding.
Hopefully he doesn’t take up an extreme position like people using contraception correctly and consistently will reduce abortions.
Hey Nate, you forgot the r in gayprolifeR.blogspot.com. Breaks the link.
As for the Donald, time will tell. But my first thought was the same as John Jakubczyk’s.
Chris Christie.
Dude, I want to see him DECIMATE Planned Parenthood like he’s doing to the teachers’ unions.
Him and Cecile. Face-to-face. The Final Round.
Yeah, I still wouldn’t vote for Donald Trump.
Regarding new pro-lifers: it’s always good to accept new people into the fold. But we should also consistently challenge the “old-timers” to constantly rethink what it means to be pro-life (Why do you oppose abortion? What else do you think pro-life applies to?), how to reduce abortion, what other movements that we should be involved in, et cetera.
In other mondo important news: I now have a Facebook. I’m like…a real person now. Or something.
If these converts really want to save babies, that’s great. Mitt Romney and Donald Trump will be in a position to do things to save those babies if they are elected. What have they done in their current life to help the pro-life cause? Nothing. For example Romney has never been to a Mass. crisis pregnancy center. Neither of these candidates know anything about our battles with the dark side. Sorry I don’t believe in battlefield conversions that are lasting.
I agree with this post – I think everyone should cut the guy a break and stop being so skeptical. If he’s being hypocritical about it or doing it to get votes, we’ll figure that out soon enough. If I had just recently converted to being pro-life and pro-lifers refused to believe I was on their side, I think I’d feel very lonely.
“That’s what politics is about, and the fact that more and more politicians even feel like they NEED to claim to be pro-life in order to get any traction in the Republican primary is a VERY GOOD SIGN about the political power that the pro-life lobby is gathering.”
Until you realize that they have no use whatsoever for you as soon as they take power. And why would they? All it takes is a supposedly heartfelt embrace of “pro-life” values and they can ensure a whole new bloc of voters–albeit one that already overlaps largely with their intended constituency to begin with–who will uncritically accept and support them from that point forward.
Joan, I agree that most Republicans just talk the prolife talk until they get themselves elected & are firmly ensconced on our tax dollars, then to hell with us. That said, I think Jill’s right to give Trump a chance on this issue. He might make fools of us all but I’m willing to wait it out because the current administration is so terrible & it’s going to take someone with more charisma than O to get him out of the WH. Maybe Trump is the man.
Let the leaders of the unborn human rights movement go to Donald Trump and ask him to spend a few million (or a few hundred million) dollars financing our cause.
We could place ads on television showing the humanity of the unborn with 4D ultrasound or embryoscopy, refuting abortionist fallacies, exposing abortionist lies and explaining the need always to vote pro-life.
We could put HD video screens in front of every killing facility showing unborn children in living color videos, we could have ultrasound, we could pay mothers not to kill their children, the possibilities are endless.
Our leaders need to get on the ball and see if Donald Trump really means what he says and is willing to make big and much needed financial contributions to our pro-life cause.
My goodness…it isn’t like somebody accepted Jesus – it seems like folks are equating a change in political thinking to a conversion to Christianity.
“Over the course of the evening I began to feel sorry for the other guy, who was all but shunned, and made it a point to go to his table, introduce myself, and sit down and offer him encouragement for his conversion.”
“You’re absolutely right Jill. We need to cultivate those who are newbies…”
“I’d be curious about his conversion story.”
That’s great – he says he’s pro-life. What does that mean? He’s going to argue for little shifts in funding? He won’t have abortions himself?
If he gives $ to a CPC without turning it into a media circus, then I’d be less skeptical. If he spoke out sharply against Planned Parenthood’s 365 MILLION that they get every year….then I’d be more likely to believe him. I don’t believe his conversion until I see him walk the walk….
“Our leaders need to get on the ball and see if Donald Trump really means what he says and is willing to make big and much needed financial contributions to our pro-life cause.”
I wasn’t aware that a lack of money was the big hurdle for your cause. After all, you count among your supposed supporters many wealthy conservative individuals and organizations. Didn’t some organization run a “pro-life” advertisement in last year’s Superbowl? It costs millions of dollars to advertise during a major televised event like that. What about Focus on the Family? That’s an organization with pretty deep pockets too.
I think Donald should let his hair go gray and complete the “Don King” look.
I don’t think toupees turn gray.
Joan,
The problem is not that there aren’t motivated wealthy benefactors. The problem is that it’s next to near impossible to get major media outlets to show truly transformative pro-life ads on their airwaves/pages/websites. Sorry, but the Tebow commercial on last year’s Super Bowl was about as veiled and soft-sell as pro-life ads can come: practically ignored. Had it been any more pointed and explicit about what the choice would have been (to kill Tim Tebow in utero) the station wouldn’t have accepted the ad. Even as milquetoast as the ad WAS, there was still an uproar from pro-aborts like you to stop it from running. You’ve got the media in your side. It’s not just about money. SO, much of the money has instead gone into establishing crisis pregnancy centers to help mothers in crisis; and even THOSE are attacked by abortion lovers like you.
Oh, and our pro-life politicians let us down all the time on or-life legislation…kind of like your supposedly anti-poverty “for the little guy” democrats STILL haven’t eliminated poverty since the laughable “War on Poverty” began. it’s only gotten worse. At least WE’VE moved the ball forward, however slowly. Poverty an unemployment have actually increased since you’ve elected your supposedly populist democrats progressives.
I like “The Donald” because he is a no-nonsense businessman, just what this country needs to run it. He’s not out to make people like him, but to tell it like it is. I would support his candidacy in a heartbeat.
Unlike politicians, you don’t have to wonder which end of the alimentary canal “The Donald” is talking from.
As for his hair, this ain’t no beauty contest.
Converts are often the most fierce proponents of a cause, because they have seen the other side. See: Norma McCorvey and Abby Johnson. If Donald Trump really has become pro-life, then we may have gained a powerful ally. As I said, I would vote for Trump before I voted for Newt Gingrich, who is an oathbreaking, backstabbing, political opportunist. I cannot understand why so many conservatives are willing to support Gingrich in 2012.
“My goodness…it isn’t like somebody accepted Jesus – it seems like folks are equating a change in political thinking to a conversion to Christianity.”
It’s not the same, but considering that it’s impossible to be pro-abortion and Christian, and that pro-aborts who convert to pro-life often convert from atheist to Christian at the same time, there are some parallels between the two.
He has my vote as long as he honestly is pro-life. Also, he definately has the business know-how to clean up this country and get us out of debt!
John –
Looking for further thought here – are you saying that it is impossible for somebody who is a Christian to have an abortion?
Hi John,
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Gingrich agree the “Era of Reagan” was over? He did something along this line in an effort to “get along” but can’t quite remember what it is.
I know I do not care for the man and never have.
Never mind..
Someone who calls themselves a Christian but has an abortion has committed a whopper of a grave sin. Afterward, will the woman repent and re-embrace Christianity? Or will she fall away from her church? Or, worse, will she work to influence others that they can be Christian and pro-abortion too. You can’t be a Buddhist and believe in Jesus the Christ at the same time, so no you can’t be a pro-abortion Christian for real. But plenty of people have been trying to pull that off the last few decades.
Ex-GOP, no, I’m not saying that it’s impossible for someone who claims to be Christian to take part in a direct abortion. Millions of “Christians” have aborted. I am saying that abortion is incompatible with Christianity. It’s like saying that you’re Christian with one breath and then denying Jesus Christ with the next. Abortion is completely contrary to the Gospels. The pro-abortion concept of killing “unwanted” people to “save” them from suffering is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.
It’s like saying that you’re Christian with one breath and then denying Jesus Christ with the next.
Not that doing that would be acceptable, but Simon Peter did it and Jesus forgave him.
Marauder, that’s correct. Simon Peter regretted what he had done and was forgiven. Pro-aborts have the same mercy available to them.
Speaking for myself, Jill, after we all got duped by Stupak, it’s mighty hard not to be extra-cautious.
Maybe Donald has had a conversion because he is going to be a GRANDPA, and now he knows, his daughter could have had an abortion, even though she is married.
There are a lot of pro-lifers who labor under the false assumption that it’s “us” against “them,” and ne’r the twain shall meet. These pro-lifers have done nothing to change people’s minds so they have never seen it happen. We show abortion pictures and see so many people change their minds, it’s not a surprise to us.
I remember when pro-lifers in Tennessee disparaged then-candidate Bob Corker, even claiming his conversion was a “fraud.” Yet he has been 100% pro-life in the US Senate. Check him out on our new video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8Rk44gn824.
Gov. Christie traces his pro-life conversion back to the year his first child was born. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this was the same year that somebody first showed him abortion video.
I have a new rule. I will publicly endorse no candidate (below President) who will not agree to sit down and watch abortion video with me.
Regarding Mr. Trump, I think we should approach him with an open mind. But it’s incumbent upon him to offer a credible story explaining his conversion.
If he’s really serious you will know it by the amount of time and money he spends on pro-life issues. And what would be his motive to become President if it’s not to make a positive change. It would be refreshing to have someone that had the financial insight and tenacity that he has. I can’t imagine him cozying up to NAFTA . And it would be a nice change of pace to see someone fight for our national financial interest. Maybe he’ll buy back a few of our ports and we will have real security on our waterways again.
Does he believe that at conception a baby is a person with all the right to life he will ever have? Or will Mr. Trump allow exceptions?
EGV wrote:
My goodness…it isn’t like somebody accepted Jesus – it seems like folks are equating a change in political thinking to a conversion to Christianity.
(*sigh*) You really, honestly see abortion solely as a “political issue”, don’t you? No chance that it could be a moral issue which transcends politics? You really tempt me to despair of you, EGV. It’s honestly sad.
That’s great – he says he’s pro-life. What does that mean? He’s going to argue for little shifts in funding? He won’t have abortions himself?
Don’t you remember defending your own “pro-life credentials” by saying the exact same thing (i.e. you’ve never had any abortions)? I’m curious why you’d be more severe on Donald Trump than you are on yourself, friend.
Paladin – No, I don’t see it purely as a political issue – but I also don’t see it as an equal to becoming a Christian – seems to hint at idol worship at that point.
Mm-hmm. I misunderstood you, then: I thought, when you said that Mr. Trump’s apparent change toward a “pro-life” position was “a change in political thinking”, you were categorizing “changes toward a pro-life position” as “changes in political thinking”. My mistake!
You may have to unpack your “idol worship” comment for me, as well; I’m not clear on what you meant.
For historical interest: here’s your “I’m pro-life because I have three beautiful kids, and no abortions” comment:
http://www.jillstanek.com/2010/11/sunday-funnies-11-14-10/comment-page-1/#comment-292882
So… have you reconsidered your snark against Mr. Trump? (There is something to be said for setting the bar just a wee bit higher than “having had no abortions”, anyway.)
No problem Paladin
What I meant in that…let’s say I made the case that anyone who was spending time at the local soup kitchen must be a Christian, because that is something I felt all Christians should do.
Donald Trump says he’s pro-life – now, he might or might not be – and furthermore, he could have 100 reasons to do so (one obvious one could be that he wants to be President and wants votes from people). If somebody equated that with a conversion to Christianity, then I’d say that they are holding his position on abortion as equal to his position or belief in Christ.
Now, I’m not saying anyone was doing that – it is just language that perks my ears – people would say that same thing if I said I was a “believer in Obama”, or “I found my hope in candidate X”. Maybe it is just innocent – just perks my interest a little.
Paladin – Let me remind you that if everyone was pro-life to the standard I described (personally not having an abortion in the family) – we’d have no abortions in this country at all.
I wasn’t meaning it as a “snark” against him – if you asked 50 people on this board to sum up what it meant to be “pro-life”, you’d get 40-50 different answers. Furthermore, he’s running for President – there seems to be a bit more that he would be able to do than you or I? Knowing what he means by Pro-life isn’t questioning if he’s passed a certain bar – it’s wondering what I asked – what does he mean by pro-life? Alan Keyes and John McCain both said they were pro-life, but that meant very different things.
Paladin – Let me remind you that if everyone was pro-life to the standard I described (personally not having an abortion in the family) – we’d have no abortions in this country at all.
I’m trying hard to tell if you mean that as a serious rejoinder, rather than a twisted attempt at irony… care to enlighten me? Because, if taken seriously and literally, it’s really not very useful. Has it not occurred to you that: (a) we’re NOT at that point, yet, and (b) we need to find some way to GET OTHER PEOPLE to that point… which will probably take more than simply refraining from abortions? Even abortion-tolerant people (“I’m personally against abortion, but [blah, blah, blah]…”) refrain from abortions, when it suits their personal tastes…
I also understand that Mr. Trump’s claim to be “pro-life” needs “vetting” (after all, Kathleen Sebelius claimed to be “pro-life”, as well). I just didn’t see how you could cast aspersions on his claim (by asking whether he’d be doing “pittances” such as making “small shifts in funding” and “personally refraining from abortions”) when you stake your own “pro-life” claim on one of those self-same “pittances”…
That, coupled with the fact that, whenever I see anyone put politics over morality (or let his/her morality be determined by politics), it really threatens to make me existentially ill. I have this funny priority system that judges political systems by objective morality, and not the other way around.
Paladin –
First off – who talks like that? ” I just didn’t see how you could cast aspersions on his claim (by asking whether he’d be doing “pittances”
Many times when I read your posts, I read it with the accent of a 75 year old British man. Don’t ruin it for me and tell me you aren’t. It works well.
You may continue to scoff at personal responsibility and doing what is right – look down on somebody for “only” choosing to embrace and love their kids. Seems like most on this site are bigger fans of those who have had abortions or assisted in abortions and changed their ways. Sorry I can’t live up to that.
What else do you believe qualifies somebody as Pro-Life? Do I need to march in a rally? Vote for the person with the right talking points? Fire bomb a clinic? Seriously – what is the key here? If simply making the right decisions in life isn’t good enough, can you spell out the pro-life talking and walking points for me?
“If simply making the right decisions in life isn’t good enough, can you spell out the pro-life talking and walking points for me?”
The term “pro-life” is used as a proxy for political activism. There is no distinction made between personally rejecting an activity and advocating the use of government sanction to prevent others from engaging in it. This pattern holds true for most socially conservative political stances. Supporting “traditional marriage” does not mean refraining from marrying a person of the same sex, it means supporting a policy position that no one else should marry a person of the same sex either. This is why I find it a bit disingenuous to compare the socially conservative and socially liberal positions on any given issue; they’re not two sides of the same coin, or “pro” and “con”. The pro-choice position would only be directly comparable to the “pro-life” position if it advocated for requiring every woman to have an abortion.
If he gives $ to a CPC without turning it into a media circus, then I’d be less skeptical.
Liz,
If he gave money to a CPC without the media knowing, how would we ever know???
In all of this I am reminded of the passage in the Gospel where Jesus’ Apostles come back from their mission reporting that they stopped others from preaching in Jesus’ name. Jesus admonished them to not do this again, stating that whoever isn’t against us is for us.
So when I see Donald getting on in years and beginning to preach the good word about the Life issues, I am reminded of Jesus’ admonition. Donald may not be a card-carrying Apostle, but it’s God’s message, not ours, that he’s preaching. We need to cultivate that. We have everything to gain by doing so.
And if he’s not for real, what have we lost? We’re no worse for the wear.
People are known by their fruit/love. And if a politician (not speaking of Trump necessarily) has literally killed thousands of babies with previous legislation, I would need to see some good fruit before I would accept them into the pro-life community.
If Trump is looking for acceptance and friendship in the pro-life community then I would gladly give it. If he is looking for a vote… well, he’s gonna have to work a little harder than that for my vote. I want to SEE that he is pro-life not just hear words. If I voted someone into office who says “i am pro-life” who then went on to pass pro-abortion legislation I would feel like I had blood on my hands.
“The pro-choice position would only be directly comparable to the ‘pro-life’ position if it advocated for requiring every woman to have an abortion.” Since it’s the pro-choice position that has provided for at least 50 million legally sanctioned abortions in the U.S. alone since the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973, what difference does it make, really, that the pro-choice position does not require every woman to have an abortion? The dictionary definition of “pro-” is “supporting” or “in favor of.” When you support the right to choose abortion, you give your blessing to a cause that serves overwhelmingly to accommodate abortion – you support abortion. That is, you are pro-abortion. It doesn’t matter that you don’t support *forced* abortion.
Why do abortion rights supporters so emphatically point out that they are pro-CHOOOOOOICE and not pro-abortion? Gay rights supporters call themselves “pro-GLBT” (pro-gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/transexual), and it’s a given that they support the rights of heterosexuals too. Those who advocate the legalization of marijuana call themselves “pro-marijuana,” and it’s a given that they’re okay with one’s choice to refrain from smoking pot. Gun control opponents call themselves “pro-gun,” and it goes without saying that they’re not out to force anyone to own a gun. Meat industry lobbyists probably don’t have a problem with being referred to as “pro-meat,” and it’s understood they’re not out to ban tofu. But abortion rights supporters take issue with being called “pro-abortion”; they are pro-choice and not – oh, absolutely not! – pro-abortion! Please.
While those who support abortion rights also support adoption or keeping the child, those who are anti-abortion support adoption or keeping the child too. The overwhelming difference between the two sides is abortion. The abortion rights cause is the only cause I know of where, in identifying or labeling themselves, the proponents are reluctant to name the very thing that distinguishes them from their opposition. Unlike supporters of other causes, abortion rights supporters refuse to identify themselves with the very thing they support. They try to distance themselves from the very thing they support by asserting that they are pro-choice and not pro-abortion. I think that’s kind of weird. Do gay rights advocates say, “I am pro-people, not pro-GLBT”? Do meat industry lobbyists object to the term “pro-meat” and insist on being called “pro-food”?
I mean, there are many sorts of choices in this world. There’s the choice to marry or enter a civil union with someone of the same sex, there’s the choice to smoke a joint, there’s the choice to own a gun, there’s the choice to have one’s steak medium-rare, there’s school choice, there’s the choice to prostitute oneself, etc. Everyone makes all manner of choices every day, but when someone declares himself or herself to be “pro-choice,” what’s the first thing you think of? Abortion, right? So why the reluctance to identify as pro-abortion?
After all, the term “anti-choice” is widely accepted as a reference to those who are anti-abortion. You could be in favor of the choice to marry someone of the same sex, the choice to smoke a joint, the choice to own a gun, the choice to have a steak, school choice for parents, AND the choice to prostitute oneself – but if you are against abortion, you are instantly fashionably criticized for being “anti-choice.” Well, “anti-abortion” wouldn’t mean “anti-choice” if “pro-choice” didn’t mean “pro-abortion,” would it? And “pro-choice” does mean “pro-abortion” when it all comes down to it.
So, if you’re pro-abortion, then own it – don’t be ashamed. Everyone else owns up to exactly what it is they’re supporting when it comes to every other cause. Why hide behind the euphemism of “choice”? Be proud of being pro-abortion because that is what you are. You’d proudly be identified with a label that indicates exactly what you support when it comes to every other cause, so why make an exception when it comes to the abortion rights cause? Don’t be ashamed: Own your pro-abortion stance.
“Choice,” tragically, has become a euphemism for one thing and one thing only: Abortion.
EGV wrote:
Paladin – First off – who talks like that?
:) You didn’t catch my ironic “tweak” of your criticism of my “snooty, big words”, on the latest “Sunday Funnies” thread? I’m crushed…
And I’m assuming you don’t want me to find the link to the first time you said “who talks like that?”, and my response? It’s virtually the same, I assure you.
Many times when I read your posts, I read it with the accent of a 75 year old British man. Don’t ruin it for me and tell me you aren’t. It works well.
:) Your wish is my command; I won’t tell you, one way or the other. Savour the mystery as you please.
You may continue to scoff at personal responsibility and doing what is right – look down on somebody for “only” choosing to embrace and love their kids.
I do not scoff at your personal responsibility; and if you had the least clear memory of our discussions on that point, you’d know that. I chide you for thinking that “refraining from abortions” can possibly exhaust your responsibilities in the “pro-life” area, especially when numerous pro-abortion people can claim the very same “choice”. You might as well say that I “look down on you” for refraining from strangling your neighbours in their sleep! The claim is almost too bizarre for a rejoinder.
Seems like most on this site are bigger fans of those who have had abortions or assisted in abortions and changed their ways. Sorry I can’t live up to that.
Full points for being maudlin; no points for content, sir. See my previous comments; this comment of yours is so distorted and hyperbolic as to be ridiculous.
What else do you believe qualifies somebody as Pro-Life?
Refraining from voting for (and supporting) pro-abortion politicians would be a good start…
Do I need to march in a rally?
We’d love to see you at the next March for Life, in fact!
Vote for the person with the right talking points?
Hardly. You’re the political creature who lives by and breathes talking points, not I. I’m rather more interested in objective moral truth.
Fire bomb a clinic?
If you did that, and if I were in a position to do so, I’d be the first to have you arrested for doing that… so no, bad guess.
Seriously – what is the key here?
Being pro-life means valuing human life above all other lesser concerns. It means subordinating your pet political projects in favour of defending the unborn, the elderly, and all others at risk from the culture of death. It means being unequivocally anti-abortion, for one… and you are not that (as you’ve confirmed, on more than one occasion).
I really do wonder: not that I’m trying to shoo you away, or anything, but don’t you think you’d be much happier at a site like “Vox Nova”? They’re against abortion (at least ostensibly), but they don’t let such a matter distract them from their higher priorities: immigration reform, criticism of excessive patriotism, socialized medicine, and the like. I truly think you’d be flying with birds of a feather, there.
If simply making the right decisions in life isn’t good enough, can you spell out the pro-life talking and walking points for me?
“Making the right decisions?” I count ONE good decision you made: not slaughtering your children in-utero; and that was a basic moral expectation, not heroism. I would not expect praise from you for refusing to kill my neighbours, nor should I; does the concept “bare minimum of expected morality” mean nothing to you? No… as pleased as I am at the fact that you “chose” not to murder your beloved children, there really is a bit more to being “pro-life” than that. Even an unequivocal statement that you value life more than you value your hatred of the GOP (and honestly: who really CARES about them? You’re seriously obsessed, I think.) might do, for starters.
If you’d like the link for Vox Nova, I’d be happy to get it for you… though a Google search will uncover it, I think.
These are excellent points Meredith, you have my sentiments. The pro-choice group is constantly splitting hairs about what their position is. They say there’s a diff. between pro-choice and pro-abortion but the fact is, they want for it to be legal for women to abort their babies. It’s pretty straightforward, callit what you want but you still support legal abortion. I understand they may think it is a difficult decision to make and they may not be happy about women doing it, but that doesn’t make them any less PRO abortion. Being in favor of something doesn’t convey how happy you are about said thing happening, for ex. being Pro-free speech doesn’t mean you prefer people saying offensive things or that all speech is good. You still say you are pro-free speech because you don’t think the government should control what people say or ban certain words to be spoken. You wouldn’t say I am not pro-freedom of speech I am pro-choosing to say whatever you want to. That would be double-talk.
It’s just odd how people can be so passionate about abortion but refuse to associate themselves with the word.
Paladin –
Couple of quick points:
– I had posted this response a few days ago before you had put together your super cool one on the other thread – did not miss it – enjoyed it thoroughly.
– On websites – I’m not a “flocking” type of person – I feel I learn more discussing with folks that aren’t completely like minded as I am. I try not to be a bother though – or I’m trying harder than I was in the past.
– Thanks for the thoughts – It almost seems like you would have a scoring system and a person would need to pass a certain line on a bar – marching might get a few points – donating to a shelter might get a few points. I think you’d have to refrain from voting all together to qualify for a consistent life view (the left aborts and kills old people, the right kills anything they can with guns and executes people) – maybe a couple of points there. I don’t know – I think the more I talk to pro-lifers, the more they shrink the tent they hang out under – might not be a good strategy long term.
EGV wrote:
I had posted this response a few days ago before you had put together your super cool one on the other thread – did not miss it – enjoyed it thoroughly.
:) I aim to please.
On websites – I’m not a “flocking” type of person – I feel I learn more discussing with folks that aren’t completely like minded as I am. I try not to be a bother though – or I’m trying harder than I was in the past.
Ah. Well… suit yourself; keep it as an option, if you like.
And for what it’s worth, I do apologize if I became too irate/intense with your past comments. You seem to have just the “wrong” mixture of (apparent) intense devotion to politics (something which I loathe and despise, and find to be one of the most shallow of pursuits, tolerable only when it serves the highest good unequivocally), a seeming blase attitude toward the (forgive me) cataclysmic evil of abortion, and a sometime tendency to waltz people around in rhetorical circles when you disagree with them (with no apparent progress toward, or any apparent desire for, a resolution of the argument and/or a meeting of the minds) for my ready patience. I think I would have much the same reaction to someone who, aboard the sinking Titanic, incessantly argued about whether the fleeing passengers should be seated facing the bow of the lifeboat, or the stern! Nothing personal was intended, I assure you.
Thanks for the thoughts – It almost seems like you would have a scoring system and a person would need to pass a certain line on a bar
You do seem to think in terms like that… and it’s not an accurate portrayal of my position at all. My view is an “attitute-and-works-based” system, rather than a “works-based system” or “attitude-based system” alone… one that needs to be built on a rock-solid moral foundation (made up of more than mere consensus, opinion polls, political expediency, and the like). I believe, for example, that the cold-blooded murder of an unborn child (and by means so barbaric that they wouldn’t be tolerated against live kittens or puppies for an instant–and rightly so) should strike anyone with a well-calibrated moral compass as being of far greater importance than are competing theories about social welfare programs (where no one is intentionally targeted for death) and the like… and those who do not see the clear difference in moral gravity astound, dismay and (sometimes) infuriate me. When you spend far more time talking about pet political theories (involving social programs, and the like–many of which might be good in and of themselves, but are not nearly so urgent or grave) than you do about the systematic, commerce driven, intentional murder of innocent children, then I have more difficulty seeing you as “pro-life”, yes. I do wonder if your attitude would be different if born children (of ages newborn to 7 years) were thrown, live, into meat grinders, at the rate of roughly 3000 per day? Or would you still continue speaking more urgently of “health care reform”, “Social Security benefits”, and the like?
I think you’d have to refrain from voting all together to qualify for a consistent life view (the left aborts and kills old people, the right kills anything they can with guns and executes people)
See: here’s a clear example of where I think your sense of proportion is simply off-kilter. Even in the worst possible situations, no one can seriously equivocate any U.S. war/conflict with the direct, intentional killing of an innocent, unborn child; no one can seriously equivocate the execution of a murderer (for example) with the direct, intentional killing of an innocent, unborn child. Or do you suppose that the Pentagon sends out direct orders to our soldiers to “target and kill innocent civilians, specifically, making special efforts to kill the youngest and most provably innocent”? If so, please don’t tell me; I’d rather not despair completely of your sanity.
I don’t know – I think the more I talk to pro-lifers, the more they shrink the tent they hang out under – might not be a good strategy long term.
(*sigh*) Spoken like a true pragmatist. I’m really not sure why the idea of “standing on principle, no matter how many people dislike it” is so seemingly alien to you. Do you really think morality requires an opinion poll, and a general “lowest common denominator” consensus, before you can feel comfortable including yourself in it?
Paladin –
And after all this – dozens of posts back and forth through multiple threads – we are back to square one and where i began…
You believe that a person should vote pro-life over other key issues because it trumps it in size of moral impact “Even in the worst possible situations, no one can seriously equivocate any U.S. war/conflict with the direct, intentional killing of an innocent, unborn child; no one can seriously equivocate the execution of a murderer (for example) with the direct, intentional killing of an innocent, unborn child.”
I thinking the definition of pro-life means a lot different things to somebody on this board compared to most pro-life politicians. The choice doesn’t ever come down to legal or not legal, it comes down to where the line is legally. I know, you can argue progress and starting somewhere – and that is a legit argument. I just think at the end of the day, Politicians will really dig their heals in on issues that give them the most money – and abortion ain’t one of them.
Hope all is well though –